Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An Argument for the True Faith

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
    So Roy cannot give a name to the necessary being. We all know creatures are not the necessary being, so the name of the necessary being should not indicate a creature. The name of God does just that, but Roy cannot bring himself to use it. Amazing.
    What is amazing is that you are simultaneously stupid and dishonest enough to ignore the additional associations with the name "God" and suggest it should be used based on what it does not mean.

    We all know giraffes are not the capital of France, so the name of the capital of France should not indicate a giraffe. The name of Koh-i-Noor does just that, but JM cannot bring himself to use it. Amazing.

    Exact same argument, different subject.

    (I'm assuming that JM is not so clueless to think that the capital of France is Koh-I-Noor. I guess I'll find out whether I've been overgenerous.)
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Roy View Post
      JM - So Roy cannot give a name to the necessary being. We all know creatures are not the necessary being, so the name of the necessary being should not indicate a creature. The name of God does just that, but Roy cannot bring himself to use it. Amazing.

      What is amazing is that you are simultaneously stupid and dishonest enough to ignore the additional associations with the name "God" and suggest it should be used based on what it does not mean.

      We all know giraffes are not the capital of France, so the name of the capital of France should not indicate a giraffe. The name of Koh-i-Noor does just that, but JM cannot bring himself to use it. Amazing.

      Exact same argument, different subject.

      (I'm assuming that JM is not so clueless to think that the capital of France is Koh-I-Noor. I guess I'll find out whether I've been overgenerous.)
      The fact that the necessary being is not a creature leads one to think the name of the necessary being is that which is in accord with that thing which is necessary and thereby not contingent. The name of God for the necessary being is a good candidate, for God does not indicate a creature in monotheism, when monotheism is correctly derived as it is done by Thomas Aquinas and in accord with a monotheistic tradition.

      The name of God is fittingly given to that thing which is simultaneously the 1 prime cause, 2 prime mover, 3 prime perfecter, 4 prime orderer, and 5 necessary being. In each instance the name God is fittingly given to describe, or indicate that thing which is 1-5.

      Your example does not account for the above and is thereby arbitrary, whereas my example is not.

      An Argument for the name of God as the fitting name of the 1 prime cause, 2 prime mover, 3 prime perfecter, 4 prime orderer, and 5 necessary being.

      The prime cause is the first being which positively influences another thing.
      The prime mover is the first being which positively influences another thing according to motion.
      Motion is a species of cause.
      What is a species of cause is a cause.
      Therefore the prime cause is the prime mover.
      Similarly, perfection and order also positively influence another and are thereby species of cause.
      Therefore the prime cause is the prime perfecter, which is also the prime orderer.

      Also, the prime being is that being which is unreceptive to being.
      What is unreceptive to being is being by nature.
      Being by nature is the necessary being.
      Therefore the prime cause is the necessary being.

      What are the same according to being is the same being.
      The prime cause is the prime mover, perfecter, orderer, and necessary being, and thereby the same according to being.
      Hence the prime cause, mover, perfecter, orderer, and necessary being is the same being.

      What is many under diverse aspects, but one in being has a unity of being and diversity under different aspects.
      A name of a thing fittingly indicates the nature of a thing as it is one being.
      The nature of the one that is prime must be in proportion to the perfections of the prime, which are in turn not proportional to the perfections of a creature.
      The perfections of the prime, are perfections without limit, had simply in one being, contrary to that of creatures.
      Such perfection of the prime is perfection far beyond the perfection of a creature.
      The name of the thing that fittingly indicates -

      1) the one-ness of the prime being.
      2) the prime cause, mover, perfecter, orderer, and necessary being
      3) perfection far beyond that of all creatures.

      is that name which can be said of the supreme one which is supreme, and indicates perfection beyond and contrary to the many creatures.
      That name of the supreme one is fittingly God.
      For the name of God fitting describes the prime unity of being, and fittingly describes the one under the aspects of prime cause, mover, perfecter, orderer, and necessary being, and a perfection perfection beyond that of all creatures.
      Hence the name of God fittingly describes the prime cause, mover, perfecter, orderer, and necessary being.

      JM

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Roy View Post
        Equivocation between the definition of 'will' in 'free will' and your own alternative meaning. Thus nothing you can demonstrate about your definition of 'will' is relevant to 'free will'.

        Rest deleted.

        But thanks for once again committing a fallacy in the first line of your 'proof' so that reading further is unnecessary.
        Thanks for not demonstrating what you assert. Your statement is false.

        A Thomistic website discusses the will here -

        The Will

        First off, let us treat the will. Generically, the will is an appetite, that is, a power of the soul by which we are inclined toward something. By means of appetitive powers, we seek and desire things; we strive to unite ourselves (in various ways) with them. They are consequent upon knowledge. "Some inclination follows every form."( ST, Ia, 80, 1 ) Because knowledge the attainment of a new form in a non-material way, an inclination of the appetite follows upon this knowledge. So, since there are two kinds of knowledge, sense and intellectual, there are consequently two kinds of appetites.

        From sense knowledge, ie. the apprehension of the forms of things in their particularity, sensual appetition follows. In a like manner, from intellectual knowledge, the apprehension of universal forms, intellectual appetition follows. In humans, the intellect is discursive, going from premises to conclusions logically, and so is called rational. Likewise the consequent appetite is rational; it is called the will. The will then is that power by which we desire the universal, not bound in itself to any manifestation of that universal in particular, real, material things.

        The object of both appetites is proportionate to the kind of knowledge appropriate to that appetite. Now all appetites tend toward goodness in some manner, and the manner of tending is determined by the kind of form it has, that is the kind of knowledge. So, sense appetite tends toward sensible, particular goods, and the will toward universal goodness.
        The will is an appetite. Appetite is an inclination dependent upon knowledge. The will is an appetite following intellective knowledge. Therefore the will is an appetite from understood good, (in the universal).

        1) The will is the appetite for understood good.

        Or

        2) The will is the power (can do) to appetise (desire) the understood good.

        There is no error in my definition of the will, and no equivocation of the definition of 'will' in 'free will' and my definition of will. To prove your assertion you must provide the correct definition of will which is an equivocation of either of the above two definitions.

        So lets see you go to Aquinas and find the equivocation definition of will.

        JM

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by JohnMartin
          The will is defined as an appetite for understood good.
          Originally posted by Doug Shaver
          Who says so?
          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
          St Thomas says so in the Summa.
          If I want to know what a word means, why should I take his word over that of the OED's editors?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
            If I want to know what a word means, why should I take his word over that of the OED's editors?
            Desire is always for a good. The OED is a definition that is inaccurate and the Thomist definition is more acurate.

            JM

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
              An Argument for the name of God as the fitting name of the 1 prime cause, 2 prime mover, 3 prime perfecter, 4 prime orderer, and 5 necessary being.
              Whoa. I've never seen anybody make an argument for God being named God before. Whether you came up with that or Aquinas did, that's an impressive amount of thought devoted to a really simple subject.
              Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                Desire is always for a good.
                You say so. Is that supposed to be a good enough reason for me to believe it?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                  Whoa. I've never seen anybody make an argument for God being named God before. Whether you came up with that or Aquinas did, that's an impressive amount of thought devoted to a really simple subject.
                  Roy denies the necessary being is God, hence my argument is made for anyone who makes the nominal distinction he does. Roy seems to admit the necessary being is real, but does not conclude the necessary being is God, it seems due his claim concerning a rule in formal logic, which I understand as to be really only an objection based upon nominalism. My argument for the name of God given to the prime mover, cause etc is to resolve Roy's nominalist based objection.

                  JM

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                    You say so. Is that supposed to be a good enough reason for me to believe it?
                    Desire follows upon knowledge.
                    For no being can be desired if it not first known.
                    Once known, a thing may then be desired.
                    But what is known, has being.
                    Hence what is desired is being understood as a good.
                    Therefore desire as an appetite following knowledge is always an appetite for being, which is the good.

                    JM

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                      Desire follows upon knowledge.
                      For no being can be desired if it not first known.
                      Once known, a thing may then be desired.
                      But what is known, has being.
                      Hence what is desired is being understood as a good.
                      Therefore desire as an appetite following knowledge is always an appetite for being, which is the good.

                      JM
                      er what?


                      So I know that Heroin exists.

                      I then desire heroin.

                      Therefore desire for heroin is good.

                      ---
                      I know that I have a wife (I don't really but this is a logic example)
                      I know she is cheating on me with the baker.
                      I desire to murder my wife and the baker.
                      Therefore my desire to murder is good.

                      You see a problem here?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        er what?


                        So I know that Heroin exists.

                        I then desire heroin.

                        Therefore desire for heroin is good.

                        ---
                        I know that I have a wife (I don't really but this is a logic example)
                        I know she is cheating on me with the baker.
                        I desire to murder my wife and the baker.
                        Therefore my desire to murder is good.

                        You see a problem here?
                        Anything that has being is good. It doesn't follow that anything that is good is good for you, for some goods fit human nature and others do not. Ontological goodness does not necessitate fitting goodness for man.

                        Your desire to murder your wife is good, but it is an unlawful good. Hence your desire is for a good that is not in accord with human nature as rational, and hence is an unlawful good. Desire is always for a good, be it a lawful or an unlawful good. Anything that has being is good.

                        JM

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          You see a problem here?
                          Yeah, isn't there a commandment against desiring other peoples' stuff?
                          Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                            Your desire to murder your wife is good, but it is an unlawful good. Hence your desire is for a good that is not in accord with human nature as rational, and hence is an unlawful good. Desire is always for a good, be it a lawful or an unlawful good. Anything that has being is good.


                            Someone call seer, he could have a fun discussion with JM about this.
                            Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                              Anything that has being is good. It doesn't follow that anything that is good is good for you, for some goods fit human nature and others do not. Ontological goodness does not necessitate fitting goodness for man.
                              I know what you are TRYING to argue here, but you are doing a LOUSY job so I will just keep poking holes in your argument till you understand how badly you misunderstand the "being is good" argument.

                              Everything that has being is not good.
                              We are all not good because we are fallen creatures who rebelled against God.

                              Mark 10:18 ... "No one is good--except God alone.

                              Romans 3:“There is no one righteous, not even one; 11there is no one who understands;there is no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

                              Therefore your statement is incorrect.

                              Your desire to murder your wife is good, but it is an unlawful good. Hence your desire is for a good that is not in accord with human nature as rational, and hence is an unlawful good. Desire is always for a good, be it a lawful or an unlawful good. Anything that has being is good.

                              JM
                              My desire to murder my wife is good? But it is against the law?

                              So if there were no law against murder, then it would be good to murder my wife? So since there was no commandment or law against murder when Cain killed Abel, that means that Cain's desire to kill Abel and the act itself was good according to your logic.

                              John, you really need to rethink your argument here. Don't dig the hole deeper.

                              Again, I know what the argument is supposed to be regarding Desire and Good, and I can tell you that your's is not it. I might take pity on you and explain it to you later but first I need you to see how flawed your logic is.
                              Last edited by Sparko; 03-20-2017, 03:24 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Anything that has being is good. It doesn't follow that anything that is good is good for you, for some goods fit human nature and others do not. Ontological goodness does not necessitate fitting goodness for man.

                                I know what you are TRYING to argue here, but you are doing a LOUSY job so I will just keep poking holes in your argument till you understand how badly you misunderstand the "being is good" argument.

                                Everything that has being is not good.
                                We are all not good because we are fallen creatures who rebelled against God.

                                Mark 10:18 ... "No one is good--except God alone.

                                Romans 3:“There is no one righteous, not even one; 11there is no one who understands;there is no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

                                Therefore your statement is incorrect.
                                Your argument consists in a series of disconnected bible quotes followed by a disconnected conclusion. Therefore your argument is incoherent.

                                Your desire to murder your wife is good, but it is an unlawful good. Hence your desire is for a good that is not in accord with human nature as rational, and hence is an unlawful good. Desire is always for a good, be it a lawful or an unlawful good. Anything that has being is good.

                                JM
                                My desire to murder my wife is good? But it is against the law?

                                So if there were no law against murder, then it would be good to murder my wife? So since there was no commandment or law against murder when Cain killed Abel, that means that Cain's desire to kill Abel and the act itself was good according to your logic.

                                John, you really need to rethink your argument here. Don't dig the hole deeper.

                                Again, I know what the argument is supposed to be regarding Desire and Good, and I can tell you that your's is not it. I might take pity on you and explain it to you later but first I need you to see how flawed your logic is.
                                Good is a mode of being. Whatever thing is, has being and is then good.

                                All moral acts have being and hence are good ontologically.
                                But not all moral acts are ordered towards the fitting good, and some moral acts are therefore unlawful. Killing your wife is ontologically good, for it is an act, and any act has being, which is good. But the same act is morally unlawful, and then evil, for the act is not in accord with reason and is thereby unlawful.

                                JM

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                207 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X